inurafandomcom-20200214-history
Vienna workshop
NOTES ON CHAPTER 1 of the NMM Book INURA WIEN 2012 ' ' Working group CH1:' Richard, Marvi, Laura, Lorenzo, Patrice, Katarina, Beatriz, Angela.' '' '' Note drafted by Richard and Laura (with little edit by Marvi) '' '' Content of this report 1. 'Background on Chapter 1 in preparation for INURA TALLIN 2012 ' 2. 'INURA MEETING IN WIEN plenary session' 3. 'Summary of the Ch. 1 workshop INURA WIEN 2012 ' 3.1 Story lines 3.2 Issues and dialectics 4. 'To do list and next steps' 1. BACKGROUND The discussion about the drafting of Chapter 1 started during the INURA meeting in Athens 2012. Richard distributed his notes about it in preparation of the INURA meeting in Tallin 2012. The main message for this chapter was that the introduction should mostly tell about the history of the NMM project and how it came to life. It should also entice the reader to discover what is INURA and make curious about the content of the book. In the same note, it was mentioned to have several theoretical contributions not only about NMM (although it was not specified about what) and that this chapter could possibly include a new version of the INURA manifesto/declaration. The working methodology of this project was also envisaged to be included in this first chapter. For those who need to retrace the passages of the book preparation there is a full document notes of Athens available as attachment to a message from Richard Wolff of the 6th of June to the INURA mailing list. ' ' 2. INURA MEETING IN WIEN plenary session We agree to have this chapter in a form of a narrative „The Story of INURA and NMM“. We like to have this story to be the red thread through the Chapter 1 which tells about the Theory and Method of NMM. That is to say that we like to explain here what we do in the NMM project and how we do it as a result of our INURA history. We think that the NMM project can only and best be understood if we tell the INURA story. Wherever necessary there will be specific sections with more detailed in-depth explanations, theoretical background, reasoning of why we decide to go one way and not another. INURA internal disagreements and differences shall be made transparent, without too much fighting with negative destructions. The narrative of the history is guiding the development of the theory behind this project. One aim of the Chapter 1 group is to structure the chapter in order to provide sections in which it will be possible to get into details. It is important to remember: “'we are writing this chapter for the readers of this book, not (just) for us!” (and we can imagine different readers: researchers, activists, politicians…)' It was decided to have one text written collectively about the background, theory and methodology of the NMM. This text will be written as a story explaining how and why NMM grew out of INURA debates and what a collective effort it is over the last years. The backbone of the story is INURA’s history. Inside this story several section, written by individual and/or groups of authors, will describe specific aspects, debates, theories that were crucial in developing the NMM project. 3. Summary of the WORKSHOP about Ch.1 The main content of the chapter has the backbone in the theory explaining the project. We understand the NMM as part of an history of urban processes happening in cities over the last 20 years, and that we debated, discussed and analysed within INURA. Therefore the introduction is the story of 20 years of urban changes that we look now under the lenses of NMM project. This narrative entails the theoretical debate in which we situate INURA shared criticism towards neoliberal ideologies and practices of urban development. Being aware of the fact that INURA share some crucial common understanding expressed in the principles, in the declaration and in the two INURA books, but also has many voices related to different theoretical thoughts and backgrounds, we are opting for a collage of theories, without pretending to achieve a sound coherence. For this reason, we thought that already written documents about INURA and NMM (Christian background paper, Roger criticism of NMM, Text of the COST action et al.) should be regarded as basic materials for describing NMM. In terms of content the chapter should include the main salient aspects: - History of INURA and of NMM, the story of an INURA common project before the starting of NMM - INURA internal debate academic vs. activists. Is networking is the action? - Different dialectics which have been discussed in the NMM: geographical, local/international, multiscalar et al… The group shared some general thinking on HOW this chapter/book should be drafted: - The book’s writing requires to “Think of the reader”. - We need to contextualize but not to problematize too much. - One characteristic of NMM is that we are doing collective research without funding and this is possible only after working 20 years together and many failures. - Today, we have 300 INURA members. People who are already members of INURA are important for those who want to join. “If e.g. students don’t like professors that are in INURA they will not join.” (Richard) There are lots of reasons, political, theoretic, personal, why people don’t like other people and don’t want to be in the same network. But the NMM also had the advantage to bring all members who wanted to join NMM together -old and new to INURA. - How do we deal with political issue, theory and practice, building a discourse around activism? We are not pure academic neither pure activists. “It’s not true that activists are not interested in theory…they are working on it all the time” ( Marvi). Probably we are thinking of different activists and different movements: there are important difference between them: in term of class, culture, gender, strategies and tactics. And between INURA there are different opinions on politics, methodology, related to NMM which made some people of INURA stay out of NMM. - We focus on “what unites us and not what divides”. NMM is a compromise as it does not have the foundation of an academic research ( data issues, representation etc) and we need to show where we disagree and the key contradictions of our project. 3.1 STORY LINES In the first part of the workshop the group dealing with Ch.1 started to draft the storyline of the NMM and INURA to collect the basic information which will guide the waving of the narrative of chapter 1. a. ''Storyline of INURA '''1989 Proposal for the foundation of an INURA (text, see bibliography) Written at the time the Berlin wall came down. Theory based on Harvey, Castells, Lefebvre, Friedmann. (Sassen) This proposal was sent to about 100 academics and activists all over the globe. Some 40 of them responded. Their comments were included in the founding conference of INURA in Salecina in 1991. 1991 Salecina INURA Principles, written collectively in Salecina, during founding conference (text, see bibliography) Who were the people that participated, background of people coming from movements of 70s and 80s and older ‚68ers’ (Bob, Michael, Fred, Bill?, Richard, Christian, Marvi, Giancarlo). (See also introductory chapter in Possible Urban Worlds by Fred Robinson or Bob Colenutt) (text, see bibliography) From the start, the INURA intent was of not becoming another academic group. Our goal was going beyond academic, another ‚''prise de position’'', which guided the whole INURA approach . 1992… 1993… 1994… 1995 Amsterdam annual Conference. Mark talked about a group in Luton he shoot a video about them. Mark and Richard proposed to invite Exodus group from Luton and to open up INURA . Members of the Exodus collective (Glenn and Matthew and (?)) come to Beneden/Amsterdam to introduce Exodus to INURA and to propose conference in Luton (with assistance from London). In Amsterdam there were only few women (only 2 or 3, with Annemarie Dekker). The Majority of INURA members had the goal to open up the network, even with the risk that it may go wrong. 1996 Luton annual Conference. Luton hosted a series of discussions of how INURA should continue. As a group of friends, which made many INURA members happy, growing old comrades together or as a growing group of new members? The final decision was to work with social movements and become closer to them. The chosen tools was to organize a big INURA conference in Zurich inviting key social movements from each country where we had members to discuss with them about Possible urban worlds (in the words of David Harvey) 1997 Zurich annual Conference is an important date as there was a clear attempt to relate more closely with social movements. Following the goal of Luton, at the Zurig conference were invited: - Gilde van Werkgebouwen, Amsterdam (did the Amsterdam Broedplaatsen Project develop out of the Gilde’s activities, Patrice?) - Glenn Jenkins, … (others?) from the Exodus Collective, Luton - Wagenburgen Berlin - Centro Sociale Forte Prenestino Roma Together with these people from social movement, well known academics were invited such as Margit Mayer, David Harvey, Saskia Sassen (the first INURA book is all about the conference). This meeting is anecdotal within INURA for the exchange between Glenn and Margit with Margit starting her speech saying that movements were an object of studies and Glenn saying to Margit “I’m the object“. The book Possible Urban worlds contain all the discussion, even the last panel. Possible Urban Worlds (book, see bibliography) The meeting in Zurig has been important for sharpening some contradiction which became clear in this conference, such as : - The relation between academics and activists - The polarities action and academia, research and practice. - Socialize and solidarize, bodily expression of contradictionlc1 - Theoretical key questions - The inclusion of Movements. Debate whether (and how much) INURA should be open to social movements or not. - Within INURA Academics seamed to be too dominant, and as results activists didn’t want to continue. - We, esp. the Zurich group, had become established, formal academic position people like Roger and Christian 1998 Toronto annual conference Public event in Toronto against Olympics. After that and for most of the 2000s, the activists presence is intermittent and the relation with social movement is different in different location (and conference). Some INURA local group are more rooted in movements than others (see INURA Athens and its involvement in fights against the Olympics and the Social forum). While some INURA member are politically active in different social movements other rather represent activism than being activist itself. 1999 Durham attempt to develop a common projects Research for action 1999. Established group for common research and had five working groups. (Philipp still have the papers) The idea to start a common research project has 10 years of history of attempts, various approaches, common projects but never succeed in doing what we have done with NMM. 2000 Brussels annual conference Raising the malicious question, is it the International Network of Urban Research and or on Action? (see 1998). Relevant meeting with Petrella (possibly video available / Lorenzo) 2001 Florence annual conference, “This meeting of Florence was an attempt to involve local activists. At the time I was fully involved with them.” (Marvi). There are big difference between the groups and association that we meet in Florence, social centres / Research foundation. Genoa had happened in July 2001. Florence was, yet another attempt of bringing activists and academics together. Every time, the debate of academia and activism was an aim of the INURA Conferences. The invited guests of Florence conference were Leonie Sandercock and John Freedman. 2002 Paris and Caen INURA Declaration (text, see bibliography)(discussed and developed by working group in Caen, written up by Roger Keil and then sent around, also to Marvi that added some issues between which about migrants. Translated and published by Marvi in Anarchic magazine (text, see bibliography). Action group in Paris: Droit au Logement 2003? Toronto A „common research project“ meeting in Toronto. Project had been presented a year or two before in / by Zurich. It didn’t have a real aim. (unclear) Was there not a common call to all INURA members to participate, can it therefore not be considered an INURA project? Too many differences already in Toronto so that the Amsterdam meeting was affected. What were the differences? The theoretical framework. Christian vs. Toronto (Toronto got some NAFTA money). The Toronto City institute was founded afterwards. (Toronto was also a meeting point for drafting the contested metropolis book.?) 2004 Amsterdam Discussing a common research project, many good ideas but we were not able to find an agreement. Other attempts for common project: 2005 Roma annual conference Silvia Macchi were involved in the fight against the Urban plan for Rome, with many urban movements. Gleen with few others from Luton was with us but was dislike the most (but not all) of the people involved in INURA and from then on they do not come any more. Resistant cartography project from Florence was the basis for proposing COMMA (Community Mapping) Lorenzo, Jacopo, Laura. Comma was presented in Rome and Eu funding sought after but nothing happened. Invited prof. Tovi Fenster 2006 Ruhr Area (Essen) annual conference When the Athens group joined (2006) was an important moment. New strong young group with strong political and urban social movement roots. They proposed to held the next INURA meeting in Athens about the Olympics. ' ' 2007 ADD MISSING ''' '''2008 Athens annual conference Critique of the Olympics. Squatters of gardens, beaches. Movements coming up as resistance against the Olympics, opposition before and results after the Olympics. . b. ''Storyline of INURA in relation to NMM · '''Oct. 2008 Athens/Marathon/GR : A paper about NMM with the first categories was presented in Athens ( cfr. Paper by Christian) First presentation of a common INURA project Why a common project? Common project was not always the top priority. But it became an important matter of debate because of different reasons: 1: Common research is also an issue of legitimacy for a network. Can’t stay with informal happy group for years and years. 2: Side talks among some new inura members (people that join inura recently) young Brussels people, new German people: What to do in practice, what to do together, add another level, something more practical not just speaking and exchanging views. Something to share makes sense, and it helps to find a common base for the newcomers to join in to have a common history base for those that did not share the Salecina experience. (Organisationsentwicklung organization development). 3: How to learn from each other became between 2000 and 2005 a constant issue · June 2009 Istanbul/Agva/TK Here we had a first discussion about categories ( critics regarded the north/south perspectives and dominances/ cfr. issues raised by Roger and Ute). some cities did some trials and they were presented in Agva. A group who worked on categories continued the discussion online ( Silvia distributed a revision of the categories with a document distributed online) · June 2010 Zürich/CH ''' The outcome of the discussion brought to define a new set of categories used for the posters presented at the annual meeting in Zurig/ Exhibition of 36 cities’ posters) We establish working groups: one had the task to revised the categories to respond to the criticisms (Marvi, Katerina and Dimitra); another was to revise the theory (Silvia Macchi). The main criticism about the set of categories raised in Zurich was: not political enough, lack of critique thought, not showing the social impact of NMM. · '''April (?) 2011 Berlin/D This is the first intermediate meeting about NMM. Here new layers were added and new categories were presented, and the group dealing with it continued the work online (categories group called Not only mapping) · N'ov. 2011 Mexico/Tepoztlan/MEX '(the NMM was discussed, mainly the new categories) · Feb. 2012 Athens/GR Second intermediate meeting about NMM, which consolidate the new categories and layers. June 2012 Tallinn/Kloogaranna/EST Final Approval of the actual categories and layers. Still open question regards which ones are in book and which ones only online. The cities’ groups are invited to review the layers in their maps. · Oct. 2012 Vienna/A · March 2013 Florence/I or Zurich/CH or Amsterdam/NL · July 2013 Lisbon/P · Autumn 2013 ?? (if necessary) · 2014 Warsaw/PL or Athens/GR · 2015 Warsaw · 2016 '' '' c. INURA texts about NMM ( in chronological order) · Philipp originallc2 · Philipp / Christian: New text about NMM · Christian and Weiss lc3 2004 Text on NMM · Response Roger/Ute · COST proposals 1 and 2 · Explanations / Guidelines · Categories, Layers Part of the NMM are also the additional Documents related to previously failed attempts to launch INURA common projects: Durham, Toronto, Amsterdam, COMMA (COMmunity MApping) in Rome '' '' d. ''Basic references produced within INURA ( in chronological order) · Intro Video material.lc4 · Video of the meeting of INURA in Luton. · Movie about INURA by Mark, with some interviews of various INURA members. Philipp and Richard showed part of the movie in Stockholm. · Luton movies. · Text by Roger and Ute in the book „From Possible Urban Worlds to the Contested Metropolis – Research and Action in the Age of Urban Neoliberalism“ · INURA books: Possible Urban World, Contested Metropolis, (Urban renaissance) · Articles published by several INURA members about INURA: Marvi wrote several articles in Italian. · Sources 2012 Marvi and Glenn in Venice about Theory and Action '''ISSUES AND DIALECTICS In the second part of the workshop the group had a more general debate about the possible critics and issues that regards the production of the NMM book, which are summarized as follow: Issue of mapping Not all Inurians are part of the NMM. Some people don’t believe in the power of mapping: they are rather interested in processes which believe cannot be graphically represented. For those in NMM mapping is just an instrument. This issue should be more in depth taken into consideration when drafting the methodological framework of the NMM. There should be a section on mapping, explaining why and how we decided to go for this community mapping exercise and frame our decision in a wider debate that deals with Bottom up GIS, open source mapping ,and community based mapping with activism (Laura). Also the unmappable. And the critical aspects. If it becomes too technical we put it into the introduction to the second chapter (Richard). Gender Gender issues are in our principles. Marvi proposed in the principles to mention that we have to deal with productive and reproductive work together. And that the gender difference have to be faced without prejudice (self definition / hetero-definition) Dialectic between Academia and Activism Is writing a book action? · We do no have to think in B&W. it is not academia versus activist. But something in between. ( Patrice) Academic activists. Activist academics. We are still into research or gathering /describing urban struggles and urban situations. · This debate is part of the History of INURA (Academia versus activism is an ongoing debate for more than 20 years) and people had been mixed (Richard), it is important to find a balance: Inura stands for theory and action not academia and action; we should overcome this duality. · However, there are/were activists, who have problem with academics and reject academia, and somehow did not participate any longer in INURA. Activsts rejecting INURA because they are a bunch of academics. ( Lorenzo) · It is true though that activists and academics have different agenda and tasks. Academics parallel situation as activist. Academics have specific interests ( e.g. saying what does INURA add to may publication list?) and activism what INURA add to my battle? Glenn didn’t feel comfortable anymore in the environment. Not in their place, not at ease. Gilde, we don’t need it, we don’t want it, we don’t have time, and Luton Not their agenda, not their needs, not necessary, no benefit beyond of political, emotional, occasional practical support. · And yet INURA has a much broader perspective than both sides (Patrice) · Networking connecting is a some form of action. Networking is the main agenda of INURA (laura) e.g. I worked in the past with ctiymined which are non academics but activists because of INURA. Things mix up. · Keep the dialectics alive and the nourishing dialogue between academia and activist. In the sense of Gramsci. Organic intellectual. Intellettuale organico.(Marvi, it means intellectuals that are part of the political groups (or class) that is fighting to overcome inequality, unfair and want to built different possible urban worlds). The aim is to overcome injustice, you can contribute in different way, but the aim is not the theory, is not the action is to do a revolution (!), as a radical change of the existent. Because we act and do reseach in a world that is characterised by the egemony of neoliberal thought and practices there is always the danger of cooptation (that make your collective and individual effort useless or (worse) damaging. Margit Mayer writes about how groups are being coopted ( marvi) and about movements and phases (the contribution during INURA Tallin). · Are there other networks, social movements have their work going for 20 years and try to make theory? · Organic intellectual as part of the (new?) declaration? Dialectic between International and local ''' · Is this a difficult relationship, Important for INURA and for the NMM · INURA people live and do research in their localities and bring their research from their city to INURA Members must do research and theory in their city (but do not focus neither research, nor action only on local, of course). · But doing research in other parts does mean they’re not part of the local action. · INURA from its history is very localized. The view from the beginning is a local view, Is not an internationalism. Makes it difficult to open up. Those coming in make the struggle ..Both academic activism requires to have people that live there. Experts and activists but not experts in struggles in other parts of the world. · INURA has an approach of localism not internationalism. INURA is looking at local fights not international fights. (not all the present people agree on this point). If properly organised, what we do locally is part of the global fight. The idea that the fights on labour and housing held in European counties, have to be at least European, is part of the idea that we will not be able to change things if we act only on local level. (act only in the local level: With globalization it is perhaps no longer what INURA should do? But the way the local is approached brings together diversity. Re. Local and international, local, local is not equal local: The views of old residents of a city differs from that of newcomers to cities. But differ also on matter of class and gender. The process of NMM, i.e. of drawing the maps brings differences of perspectives together. '''Dialectic between North and South / East and West Inclusion of South (2008 ??) Exclusion of post-colonial perspective Critic of Roger and Ute Cultural study perspective. North South Problematic in INURA Is local international. North South is not only worldwide but also north and south Europe (Lorenzo) This point needs further discussion. Dialectic east/west discussed in Tallinn TO DO LIST · Revise declaration (there is a group working on it) · Revise editing group at the Wien workshop. Richard, Marvi, Laura, Lorenzo, Patrice, Katarina (Beatriz?), Angela. · Someone should monitor this work, and reminding people to contribute. · Lorenzo and Laura start with this. Katerina can take over later. · Systematize what we did with the wiki website already created by Patrice and currently managed by Lorenzo and Patrice · Circulate it and amend it Everyone in working group 1 will rework that. · Enrich the list of documents on wiki including i.e. bibliography, inventory of documents (text by Roger and Ute on INURA), articles by Marvi in Manifesto (only in Italian, someone should read and extract timeline relevant issues) etc. Fred’s and Bob’s introductions to PUW and / or Contested Metropolis, ... · Give a Structure and draft of chapter (Defining the sections until February, ). Giving the structure: this group (with exceptions like Michael), with first invitation to join to revise structure · Split it into blocks. And possibly starting with the block on methodology. Then the theory. Explaining the NMM. Then the categories ( plus players) · writing the sections: open it up · or ask people to supervise section, where different people can contribute. · Decide when we are sure about which sections we suggest. · How to continue this work (COST or not)? 'Practical NEXT STEPS ' · Systematize what we did. And put in wiki. ( Laura and Richard notes to be amended by people in the wiki). · The structure of the chapter at the actual stage should be organized into sections written by individuals or teams. ( at best collective writing). There are two phases: 1. The editorial group ( open to volunteers) proposes the structure/framework/story with most important moments, second phase issue a call for writing sections by groups of individuals ( when?) · Which sections and who will write them shall be decided in the Florence NMM-meeting in February/March 2013. You are therefore invited to comment on and to extend the story before February/March 2013. Please send all comments to the Common Office info@inura.ch. · Divide it into sections, develop further, write drafts. ---- lc1Not clear to me lc2What do you mean by original? Is this the first draft of NMM or is it a text about INURA in general? lc3Not everybody know Weiss can we put name and surname here? lc4Can we be more specific here? May be we should then ask Marc. Category:workshops notes Category:references Category:materials